About your Search

20121128
20121128
STATION
CNNW 7
MSNBCW 4
CSPAN 1
LANGUAGE
English 19
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
at damage control. u.n. ambassador susan rice's trip to capitol hill, she and the acting cia director, michael morel, meeting with republican senators john mccain, kelly ayotte and lindsay graham, who were not pleased with what they heard. >> it is clear that the information she gave the american people was incorrect when she said it was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. it was not, and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case, including statements by libyans as well as other americans who are fully aware that people don't bring mortars and rocket-propelled grenades to spontaneous demonstrations. >> in a statement after the meeting, ambassador rice said that neither she nor anyone in the administration intended to mislead the american people. but the breaking news concerns the part in her sunday talk show statements that substituted the word "extremists" for al qaeda. remember, the administration said she was working from edited talking points. the question is, who did the editing? today, the senators say that acting direct
, that there are no unanswered questions. the senators saying this morning the acting c.i.a. director morell told them the al-qaeda references were dropped in the c.i.a. talking points at the request of the f.b.i. because the bureau did not want to compromise an ongoing criminal investigation. but late this afternoon, c.i.a. officials called to correct the record, that it was actually them. rice met with senator joe lieberman who asked if she was coached by the add f before her talk hoe appearances. >> she said no, she was not given messaging points at all by the white house prior to her appearance on those sound morning shows. >> so the meeting today did not settle the matter. it certainly is not as far as these republicans are concerned. >> shepard: what's the response from the administration? >> in that written statement, rice who was joined by the acting c.i.a. director on the hill, said, quote, we explained the talking points provided by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in the key respect there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. al
there was some cia activity there. what exactly it was and what the cia's told involvement was, why there was a consulate there, wasn't even a consulate, didn't do normal consulate duties. what was it all about? by won't know until the investigation is completed and released. >> senator ayotte said when you're an ambassador to the united nations -- i want to get your thoughts on this. she said, look, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation responsibilities. i guess the implication being that she would have been aware of other things that were different or contradicted directly to what she went and said on television. does this cast any doubt on her story? general clark has made what i've heard from everybody who knows her that she is an incredibly honest and forthright person. >> well, i think there's a bigger question here, erin, and that's the credibility of the administration on these national security issues and whether they politicized a national security issue that led to the death of four americans. i mean, i do -- i don't agree that the ameri
's no protest, but rice based her statement on the intelligence provided to her by the cia. rice was accompanied by mike morale, but that didn't stop mccain and others from publicly lashing out against the ambassador and now graham and aye yacht say they would block her nomination. lieberman also met with with rice today. lieberman is leaving the senate at the end of the year. the president indicated he's willing to fight for rice. one democratic senate aid tells nbc news, people are happy to fight for her. she's obviously qualified. no one on our side thinks there's credibility to the republican criticisms. i'm joined by joan walsh, author of the book "what's the matter with white people?" it it seems like she's walked into a political trap. they made it a political trap after she was the one that wanted to set up and explain things. what do you make of it? >> she does them the courtesy of going to see them. nothing compelled her to do that. she thought she would show them respect and she gets disrespected. the only thing -- what it it sounded like from mccain, the only thing that would have ma
-up. she knew all the time the cia information that was given to her. >> reporter: senators graham, mccain and ayotte tellingers after yesterday's meeting that the information let them more disturbed and not reassured about rice's benghazi comments that which portrayed the a tack as a demonstration that spun out of control. cia director mike morrell with rice for the meetings initially told her the cia references to dropped in the talking points at the request of the fbi because the bureau did not want to compromise a ongoing criminal investigation. later cia officials called back to correct the record that in fact it was the agency was responsible. there was never any intention to mislead on benghazi rice said in a written statement, the talking points provided by the intelligence community and initial assessment were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. that the white house previousing spokesman jay carney tried to put the focus on the current investigation and not ambassador rice's people are moe interested in talking points for a sunday sho
people everything she was told to say. >> bob: learn how the process works. c.i.a. is one of a number of intelligence agencies that put talk points. they didn't have the agre agreement. she got factual in their view, intelligence community view of what happened. she gave it to the sunday talk show. she made a mistake and said she made a mistak miswhat more u ask for? do you think he is went up and there purposefully lied? >> brian: shouldn't you do your research? >> andrea: yes. she knew there were conflicting accounts. why push anyone from the administration out to say anything at all. she should have done her research. maybe she is not a liar. maybe she is incatch tent. one thing that the senator trying to block you. it was great what mccain did. getting the heat. and republicans were being sexist. and let me give her a fair shake. john bolton was up for administration. they pulled the same stunt. >> dana: i think she was failed by people around her. president obama should be mad at him. rather than be mad at senators. is he not concerned they got it wrong? purposefully so? >> brian
. then they put out a statement the essence of it seems to be that acting c.i.a. director michael morrell said that the talking points have been changed by the fbi because of an on-going criminal investigation. and they were very troubled by this because of course we had already been told it was the dni that changed them. then they got a call at 4:00 p.m. from the c.i.a., actually, no it wasn't. it was us. we changed them. so then they're going what the bleep is going on? they can't get their act straight. and yet the focus of their rage when they came out from the meeting was susan rice, not michael morrell. >> bill: right. so susan rice, first of all not responsible for security at consulates or embassies around the country. number two, she's not the one who wrote those intelligence reports or provided the material for the intelligence report that she -- the findings of which she simply read or reported on. if the anger should be directed toward anybody it should be against the c.i.a. or the fbi or whoever did not have all o
that killed four americans. >> a very candid discussion with the director of the cia. we are significantly troubled by many the answers we got. the evidence was overwhelming leading up to the attack on our consulates. whether ambassador rice was informed sufficiently is a correct depiction of the events that took place. but the intervention was incorrect when she said it was a spontaneous demonstration. it was not, and there was compelling evidence that the time that that was not the case, including statements by libyans as well as other americans. mortars and rocket-propelled grenades were not spontaneous demonstrations. >> i think it does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight, -- in real time [indiscernible] anybody looking at the threat in libya, it would jump out at you. i am disappointed in our intelligence community. with a little bit of inquiring and curiosity, and think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related to a video that created a disturbance that turned into a riot, at the end of the day, we are going to get to the bottom of this.
with the director of the cia and ambassador rice because it's essential clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. >> i specifically asked her whether at any point prior to going on the sunday morning television show, she was briefed or... urged to say certain things by anybody in the white house, relate to the campaign or political operations. she said, no, she was not given messaging points at all by the white house, prior to her appearance on those sunday morning shows. >> it is clear that the informs that she gave the american people was incorrect when she said that it was a spontaneous demonstration ib spired by a hateful video. it was not. and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case. >> bottom line, i am more disturbed now than i was before the 16th september... explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice. i think it does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight, clearly was completely wrong. >> there are no unanswered ques
director of the cia said that the information about the reaction to the video and the protest was wrong and that no one corrected it, including ambassador rice, even though she had left that impression on every single network, op every sunday show. that left me very concerned about that as well. >> did she say to you that she had reviewed intelligence specifically about benghazi, that had the additional information? she couldn't say so publicly. had she reviewed that intelligence? did she affirm that to you or are you assuming that she had? >> she did review it. >> so, in other words, she knew better than what you're saying that she knew better? >> yes. that's one of the questions i have and one of the questions that i didn't feel i got a satisfactory answer to, which is if you knew that even though the classified version, obviously, had references to al qaeda in it being involved or individuals with ties to al qaeda involved in it, how could you not know when you go on every sunday show and not include that fact that it would leave a very different impression to the american people, pa
that. then they call back later and say, forget that, it was us, it was the cia. >> it's like the keystone cops. in the wizard of oz goes the scarecrow goes like this. which way did it go. each pointing in another direction. whether it's the keystone cops and it's shear incompetence, or something else is going on here to me as an american it's not -- we don't even knotphao*eub was e f.b.i. wasn't on site for three weeks. megyn: great to see you. dick durbin will talk about income dave repbgsin differentials in this country. we'll talk about it. megyn: some are calling it the scariest prank ever but it also may be the funnist. however, in between the laughs and the gasps are horror there is a real question about whether this brazilian tv show crossed a legal line with its ghost in an elevator prank. watch. ♪ [screaming] [laughter] megyn: everyone here thinks it's funny, but the question is, is it legal? there could be potential liability here, and we will debate it in today's "kelly's court," i'm taking your tweets on it, follow me@megyn kelly in between now and the court. th
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)